Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

She's just banned EVERY semiautomatic pistol except the Walther P38, the Luger P08, and some Colt and Ruger .22LR plinking pistols. (oh and the .455 Webley and the 1906 Brixia if you want to be completely inclusive)

Yup. Why "Barrel Shrouds" are a Military Feature is bewildering...

__________________"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

She's just banned EVERY semiautomatic pistol except the Walther P38, the Luger P08, and some Colt and Ruger .22LR plinking pistols. (oh and the .455 Webley and the 1906 Brixia if you want to be completely inclusive)

The term "barrel shroud" is defined in the text of the bill. That definition specifically excludes the stock extensions and slides that cover the barrel in most pistol designs.

I am reading the bill and don't see anything about registering assault weapons IAW the NFA of 1934. It appears to repeal section 922 (s) and require transfer of grandfathered assault weapons in accordance with the Brady Act, in other words just a NICS check.

Ranb

Unfortunately, someone figured out that placing semi-auto firearms into the NFA opened up something they'd rather not open - and some of us were so looking forward to it.

This is why I oppose this bill. How is banning pistol grips and barrel shrouds going to stop gun massacres? We are better off having congress do nothing at all. Look at the mess they made trying to stop the crack epidemic. Google johnny st lawrence

If they don't have anything to do with the effectiveness of the weapon, why oppose banning it?

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

If they don't have anything to do with the effectiveness of the weapon, why oppose banning it?

Because it shows that the lawmakers are not focusing on what they need to be focusing on. Instead, they are banning things that have absolutely zero effect on gun violence, when they could be attempting to figure out how nutcases keep getting a hold of firearms, and making legislation to address that issue.

__________________Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

Because it makes no sense????? I mean really?? This isn't a hard concept

I think it's more about accessorizing your favorite toys.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

There is a specific straw man that keeps coming up about 'assault weapons'. People against the classification or the banning of certain features explain how those features don't directly make the weapon more dangerous or more deadly. People for some form of ban answer with some variation of, 'oh, so they do nothing, what's wrong with banning them?'

Well 'nothing' is not what a lot of the features do. I think the confusion, in addition to the normal motivations for straw men creation, stem from a different perspective on guns each group has. To one group, guns are only weapons and everything about them must be about killing. Every feature is about killing. To those who actually are familiar with them or use them, this is as silly as wonder why cargo racks are put on some cars if they don't make them go faster or more efficiently.

There are aspects of guns that aren't there for directly killing but for comfort, ease of use (not just hitting, but cleaning/carrying/etc), robustness, personal preference, and yes, fashion. I hope this helps.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

I think it's important not to generalize as that's led to a lot of straw man creation around this issue.

The person, xyz, says this on the issue. Not a straw man.

This side of the debate says this on the issue because xyz said it. A straw man.

It happens constantly on both sides of the debate, generally with the 'ban most/all' being thrown at the more restriction side and the 'guns are the only thing stopping governmental rape camps/tyranny/diet soda enforcement' thrown at the less restriction side. Note that there is substantial middle to which almost everyone agrees, yet people might be too far on either side to actually see it as a middle. Myself included.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

I think it's important not to generalize as that's led to a lot of straw man creation around this issue.

The person, xyz, says this on the issue. Not a straw man.

This side of the debate says this on the issue because xyz said it. A straw man.

It happens constantly on both sides of the debate, generally with the 'ban most/all' being thrown at the more restriction side and the 'guns are the only thing stopping governmental rape camps/tyranny/diet soda enforcement' thrown at the less restriction side. Note that there is substantial middle to which almost everyone agrees, yet people might be too far on either side to actually see it as a middle. Myself included.

While the above is all true, my representation of the anti-gun position isn't just reflective of some of the posters on jref but is also true for nationally prominent individuals (feinstein, Bloomberg etc) leading the anti-gun charge.

He also murdered several adult faculty at the school. Are the children the only ones who matter?

Mostly as they get much better political mileage - thus the CDC moving the "children" category to include persons 18-25 (the group most likely to be killed during crimes/shooing each other and the move which I was unaware of until today on Amazon in a thread on same: (begin quote and full text of post )In reply to an earlier post on Jan 27, 2013 10:34:14 AM PST

Stephen284 says:

Robert, if yo go to the CDC website you can see the data for all death categories, including firearms. "Firearms Deaths" are not murders; they include suicide (67%) in addition to police and and other lawful self-defense shootings. This increases the numbers and inflames people because they read "Gun Deaths" as murders. This is intentional.

Also, in the list are "Children." CDC and our politically motivativated left side now consider "Children" to include 18-25 year olds." Yes, this is where the bulk of criminal shootings occur. So, how to get the number up; add in suicides, and the largest group, then change the definition of "Children" to include 18-25 year olds and there you go, lot's of "Children" are being shot. It's not true, but who bothers to look at how the stats are compiled?

By the way, on CDC you can separate into sub-categories and get a better picture of what is really going on. However, in no case are gun related deaths anywhere near illness, vehicle accidents, or drownings. Firearms deaths of all groups is below "Drownings." While on CDC you can download their data for use in an Excel Spreadsheet. Here is one link: Click here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
You can click on any category and expand it to see the sub-categories. If you further click on a code you will see how they are defined.

There are at least three people on the forum who will constantly mislead you and send you to various links that have fuzzy logic and appear to support their argument. Further review will reveal the agenda driven propaganda behind their posts. My recommendation, stick to CDC, DOJ, and FBI Stats. They of course are the most reliable. (end quote - and full text of same)

(Me again): Of course, I am sure that none of our anti-gun people are aware of that fraudulant use of terms by the CDC - because I certainly wasn't - but I am very glad someone else did their proper homework on this

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

While the above is all true, my representation of the anti-gun position isn't just reflective of some of the posters on jref but is also true for nationally prominent individuals (feinstein, Bloomberg etc) leading the anti-gun charge.

Counter: La Peirre and Alex Jones. Not they're equivalent in that they aren't elected officials, but it is what the other 'side' would say about 'gun-nuts'.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Me again): Of course, I am sure that none of our anti-gun people are aware of that fraudulant use of terms by the CDC - because I certainly wasn't...

"fraudulant"... I assume then that someone is pressing charges, suing for damages or in some way trying to put an end to the fraud? Would that be you? Please let us know the details so we can follow the charges/law suit.

There aren't as many dead people as claimed. That's okay, but damn, you gotta stop the fraud.

__________________For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

So you're flat out admitting that you want to ban things because it will prevent the despised gun-owner from harmlessly accessorizing rather than do anything about reducing violence?

Gentlemen, I present to you the anti-gun side.

Nope, I'm presenting the gun nut side if the argument. You're trying to convince people that these attachments have no effect on the effectiveness if the gun, but i don't believe you. Those attachments have specific purposes and are not just accessories.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Nope, I'm presenting the gun nut side if the argument. You're trying to convince people that these attachments have no effect on the effectiveness if the gun, but i don't believe you. Those attachments have specific purposes and are not just accessories.

You know what other accessories the military uses? They use slings. Why doesn't a sling make it an assault weapon? Swivel swings? Three point systems?

The accessories do have specific purposes. No one argued the opposite as far as I can tell. That doesn't mean that the purpose is to make it directly more deadly, or those that do make it more deadly aren't also used for other reasons, or that those that make it more deadly would change outcomes in the problematic scenarios. If there are specific design elements or accessories you'd like to argue the merits of, go ahead. That might actually make some headway.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Nope, I'm presenting the gun nut side if the argument. You're trying to convince people that these attachments have no effect on the effectiveness if the gun, but i don't believe you. Those attachments have specific purposes and are not just accessories.

What "accessories" are you talking about?

Pistol grips don't make a firearm more deadly...it's about comfort for the shooter.

There are two accessories I can think of that actually assist a shooter...a scope or a laser sight (neither of which is being talked about as a qualifier for an "assault weapon"). All others are cosmetic at best.

It's like banning ground effects and hood scoops for Honda's because it makes them look fast.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Pistol grips don't make a firearm more deadly...it's about comfort for the shooter.

There are two accessories I can think of that actually assist a shooter...a scope or a laser sight (neither of which is being talked about as a qualifier for an "assault weapon"). All others are cosmetic at best.

It's like banning ground effects and hood scoops for Honda's because it makes them look fast.

More comfortable = more effective for the shooter.
Since you seem to think the rest are just cosmetic, why are gun nuts pouting over the banning?

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

It does, but it simply won't be a factor with the crimes you claim you want to address. It makes weapons less durable for recreational shooters, and makes burns more likely.

It doesn't make it easier for spree killers, or gang violence, or even shoot-outs with police.

Again there are more things accessories address than 'kill easier' or 'cosmetic'.

__________________Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Can you explain how a barrel shroud helps cool off a barrel? If it is a cloth or metal shroud that insulates the barrel, then it holds in heat. If it surrounds the barrel without touching it allowing air to circulate around the barrel, it does nothing to cool the barrel.

If you take a look at a firearm, you will see that most of them have some means of covering or partially covering the barrel. In the case of rifles the fore end or shroud exists to allow the shooter to hold the front of the firearm or support it on a rest to steady it. Simply resting the barrel on a rest or supporting it with the bipod degrades accuracy. If the barrel gets hot, then the shroud also allows the front of the firearm to be held without burning the hand.

Recoil operated pistols normally have the barrel partially or fully covered to allow for proper operation. It is usually only revolvers or blow back handguns that lack any sort of cover for the barrel as it is usually not needed.

Is it too much to ask that you learn a bit more about firearms before embarrassing yourself here? It is counterproductive to do otherwise.

Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot.